Pages

Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi

Vincent Bugliosi is an acclaimed lawyer and author, best known for his prosecutorial work on the Charles Manson case and for the fascinating book that followed called Helter Skelter. He’s written numerous other books, including The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, but Bugliosi’s role as a television prosecutor in On Trial: Lee Harvery Oswald, the 1986 simulated British trial against Lee Harvey Oswald, is less well known. Yet, this role firmly established him as an assassination buff, with a strong leaning against conspiracy theories.

Bugliosi addressed a variety of allegations about the murder-that both Oswald and Jack Ruby (the man who shot Oswald 48 hours after the assassination) were hired by either the mob, Secret Service, CIA or Cuban exiles; that there were actually four or five shots at the presidential motorcade, not three as the Warren Commission claimed; that the home film taken by Abraham Zapruder had been tampered with; and that Oswald was a poor marksman and never could have succeeded in killing the president with his inadequate rifle.

Let’s look at some of those claims and what a few of his critics have to say about them.

Historically, according to Reclaiming History, the mob has almost always used their own men, in pairs or with backup, but not alone. The few times that they’ve deviated from this rule were to kill other mobsters, usually hiring young, poor black men to do so. Bugliosi argued that no one cared enough about mobsters, or sadly, about young, disenfranchised black men for this to have provoked much of an investigation. The likelihood that they would have hired two novices like Oswald and Ruby seemed ludicrous to him. Also, there’s an unwritten rule among the mob that they don’t kill law enforcement, and when they do commit public executions, they make sure not to get caught! They certainly wouldn’t have shot somebody in an open space right in front of a room full of police officers and reporters the way Jack Ruby did.

The CIA would have rejected Oswald as an emotionally unstable loner with a long history of Marxist tendencies. He never would have qualified as an agent for them because they couldn’t have relied on him to follow orders, according to Bugliosi. More importantly, Oswald was a fierce supporter of Fidel Castro. Why would he have collaborated with the CIA, who had tried to take down Castro in the Bay of Pigs? Some conspiracy theorists say that Oswald was actually quite right wing, not left, and that he was only pretending to be a Marxist. But that would have made him an exceptional actor having “pretended” to be someone he wasn’t for his wife, mother, brother and anyone else who knew him, right back to his teenage years.

The number of shots fired is a more complex issue, as is the location from where they were fired. Conspiracy theorists claim that the bullet that killed Kennedy went through the front of the head and out the back of his skull, blowing his brains out. If that were true, a shooter would have had to have aimed from the infamous grassy knoll, a small hill along Elm Street in front of the motorcade. But the Warren Commission Report stated that there were only three shots: the first one missed, the second one hit the president in the back, and the third one was the fatal head shot. Supposedly, the second bullet went through the back of JFK’s neck, exited through his throat, proceeded to hit Governor Connally in the back, injured his shoulder and right wrist in flight, and exited through his thigh.

One can see why this scenario has been referred to as the “magic bullet” theory and why it’s so hard to comprehend. Adherents to the JFK conspiracy notion, as well as many current history textbooks, place the governor directly in front of the president in the limousine. If indeed Connally had been sitting in that position, the single fatal bullet could not have hit Kennedy and then moved in such a seemingly twisted trajectory to injure Connally. However, Bugliosi stated emphatically that the governor was not sitting directly in front of the president, but rather in front of him and slightly to the left. That would have enabled our single bullet to follow a straight-line path and hit both men the way it did.

One problem with the Warren Commission’s Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy is its size. The original 888 page report was followed by 26 volumes (more than 50,000 pages!) of supporting documentation, thus making it virtually impossible for the average person to read. Bugliosi felt that this was unfortunate because he extolled the exhaustiveness of the report. But covering every angle and aspect of the assassination was both the report’s strength and, by limiting its critical findings to a small number of intrepid readers, its weakness.

The movie JFK: The Case for Conspiracy by Robert Groden alleged that there were four or five shots, which would have necessitated a second shooter, probably operating behind the picket fence at the top of the grassy knoll. The Case for Conspiracy showed actual footage of the president and his wife arriving in Dallas and driving into Dealey Plaza, and stated that 80% of the witnesses heard a shot coming from the grassy knoll, whereas Bugliosi claimed that only four out of 494 witnesses heard a shot from that direction. Everyone else confirmed that the shot came from the Texas School Book Depository, where Bugliosi believed that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots in succession. (One thing to keep in mind here is the notorious unreliability of eyewitness testimony, which has been repeatedly demonstrated.)

In the Groden movie, which used contemporary footage, Connally is sitting directly in front of Kennedy. Why can’t we see with our own eyes what Bugliosi says happened? Because this was the ’60s, and it was an amateur home movie. The quality of all the various videos taken that day-including the film by Zapruder, who was standing closest to the president during the shooting-was so poor that even close-up shots made it difficult to discern what happened. As well, the car passed right underneath a large metal sign to the Stemmons Freeway, slightly before the shooting, further impairing our visibility.

As an example of the poor resolution of the film, Groden made a case for a “Black Dog Man” standing up on the grassy hill behind the picket fence, but when he focused in on the image, all I could think was, “Good grief! Where’s my magnifying glass? Or better yet, my telescope!” It would have taken extraordinary vision and imagination to have distinguished a human face on that film. What was disconcerting, though, in this movie, which was not even mentioned in Reclaiming History, was that Groden interviewed a number of doctors at Bethesda Hospital who either treated Jack Kennedy in the emergency room or performed the autopsy. And when he showed many of the physicians, as well as a nurse, the autopsy pictures, they all said that those were not the original photos. Groden concluded that someone had tampered with the original x-rays.

But Clint Bradford discredits Groden’s reputation by claiming that he testified at the O.J. Simpson trial, stating that he had neither photographic credentials nor a high school education; made his living by studying the assassination and acting as a tour guide on the motorcade route; suffered several strokes with subsequent memory loss; and stubbornly refused to recant his testimony about a photograph of O.J.’s shoes, insisting that the picture had been tampered when 30 other photographs reflected the same shot.

Bugliosi didn’t evaluate The Case for Conspiracy; however, he spent an enormous amount of time examining the 1991 blockbuster hit JFK by Oliver Stone. JFK followed followed the life of Jim Garrison, a New Orleans district attorney who became obsessed with the idea that multiple shooters had been hired to eliminate Jack Kennedy in order to advance the war in Vietnam. In 1969, Garrison fingered local businessman Clay Shaw as a participant, with no evidence whatsoever according to Bugliosi, who claimed that Garrison changed his story and his target frequently after Shaw was proven innocent by a jury in less than an hour-54 minutes to be exact. It was perfectly clear to the jury that Garrison had persecuted an innocent man. A key witness, Perry Russo, who was left out of the movie altogether, apparently made his accusations about Shaw’s involvement under hypnosis, and Garrison, through an assistant, had tried to bribe at least one witness to supply false testimony. A number of critics believe that Stone played fast and loose with the facts in JFK, but unfortunately, it became a huge hit; thus, the idea that the Warren Commission had committed the biggest cover-up of all time became imprinted in our cultural history.

Conspiracy theorists have suggested that Oswald was a lousy marksman and had an inferior weapon. But Bugliosi said that Oswald actually won marksmanship awards in the Marines for above average shooting-he was good but not an expert-and that his rifle was perfectly workable. Some believe that Oswald never had the time to fire off three rapid shots with that type of rifle, but both CIA simulations using Oswald’s actual gun and CBS simulations using the exact model of Oswald’s gun have proven that it could be done in even less time than it took Oswald.

There are some conspiracy buffs who think that the Zapruder film was spliced because certain frames were missing. Bugliosi explained that Life magazine damaged a few frames accidentally after Abraham Zapruder sold them his film, but wisely he had made several other copies, which were not damaged. Ergo, the missing frames are still available and nothing out of the ordinary occurred in them.

What we do know about Lee Harvey Oswald, Bugliosi stated, is that he owned the rifle, his prints were on it, there were three bullet casings with his prints on them on the sixth floor of the Book Depository where he’d been standing, and he was a Marxist who opposed American government. That’s Bugliosi’s story and he’s sticking to it.

But there are those who vehemently disagree with Bugliosi’s ballistic interpretation, like James DiEugenio. In his article, “Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman, and Bugliosi’s Bungle: A Comprehensive Review of Reclaiming History“, which is indeed a comprehensive analysis and a long but worthwhile read, DiEugenio disagreed with just about everything that Bugliosi suggested, including the extent of Oswald’s shooting ability; the price, make and serial number of Oswald’s rifle; and Oswald’s ownership of the rifle found on the sixth floor. Claiming that the rifle was the central piece of “evidence” in Bugliosi’s case, DiEugenio summarily dismissed his argument as woefully lacking.

And in “Review of Reclaiming History: A Closed Mind Perpetrating a Fraud on the Public,” James H. Fetzer stated that Bugliosi took a prosecutorial rather than scientific approach in his reasoning. Bugliosi had four basic premises, which Fetzer claimed were all erroneous: one, that a single bullet could have gone from Kennedy’s body into Connally’s as it did [Retort-the solitary bullet theory is anatomically impossible]; two, the shooter was on the sixth floor of the Book Depository [the wounds couldn't have been sustained with a downward motion, thus, the shooter needed to be lower down in the building, such as on the second floor or out on the knoll]; three, he used a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano [the bullets that hit the president and the governor were high velocity and a Mannlicher-Carcano is a low velocity rifle]; and four, the shooter was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald [yet Oswald was seen within 90 seconds of the shooting downstairs in the lunchroom so he couldn't have been on the sixth floor]. Fetzer, instead, postulates several shooters and probably six shots.

Fetzer also believes that the Zapruder film and the autopsy x-rays were altered, and that another brain was substituted for the president’s. In addition, Fetzer supports the idea that the US federal government masterminded the 9/11 attacks.

Reclaiming History implores readers to use common sense. Bugliosi is convinced that people just can’t keep secrets, and for government agencies, including Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and future President Gerald Ford, to have conspired to prevent the American people and the rest of the world from knowing what happened to Jack Kennedy, and then for not one of them to have spoken a word about it, including a deathbed confession, for 46 years, says it all.

In addition, Oswald died leaving $183 in the bank. If he had been a paid marksman, who paid him and how? And if he was bought off, why did he shoot the president with a $12 mail order rifle? Why not provide him with not only an excellent weapon but also an airtight escape route afterwards? Was someone there to pick Oswald up after the dirty deed? No, he was wandering the streets alone, waiting for a bus. And it would have been rather sloppy of the CIA or the FBI to have allowed their main hitman to have been interrogated by the police for almost 48 hours before he was killed. If a government agency hired Oswald to kill Kennedy, they most certainly would have picked him up in a secure vehicle immediately afterwards and driven him to his death.

Lastly, Bugliosi said that the motorcade route going down Elm Street and passing the Book Depository was only established four days before the assassination, which would have seriously undermined a collaborative plan. For weeks beforehand, Oswald had applied for different jobs because he didn’t like the Depository, and the night before, instead of staying in and making contact with his “connections,” he went to visit his estranged wife Marina to beg her to return to him.

How can we know whose “facts” are correct? It’s hard to ascertain the whole story without reading the Warren Commission Report and many of the major pro-conspiracy and anti-conspiracy books, examining the film evidence and x-rays, having a medical background, and otherwise expending an inordinate amount of time on the project. However, when alleging a cover-up of such magnitude, the burden of proof is on the accusers. Where is their evidence? Just because the critics pose questions that may never be answered doesn’t mean that there was a massive conspiracy.

Bugliosi made numerous excellent and compelling points. The entire Kennedy family accepted the lone gunmen theory, including Jacqueline, the late RFK, Teddy, and JFK’s now deceased son, John Jr.; the latter even agreed reluctantly to talk to Oliver Stone to discuss his movie and walked out of the meeting disgusted. If even one Kennedy had been dubious of the Warren Commission’s findings, surely they would have used every ounce of their impressive political muscle to call for an inquiry, which none of them ever did.

Aside from the length of the book, one criticism that I have of Reclaiming History is that Bugliosi is clearly self-righteous and condescending towards anyone who doesn’t share his point of view. He doesn’t suffer fools lightly and believes that all conspiracy theorists are just that.

Comments (3)

I came across the citation to my Web site by chance this evening. Although the “bottom line” is correct, it is not accurate that your article state, “But Clint Bradford discredits Groden’s reputation by claiming that he testified at the O.J. Simpson trial … ” That Web page that you cited isn;t “Clint’s” original material. It is court transcripts frm the O.J. Simpson trial, where Groden – under oath – made all those admissions. After reading this, I now see why I was taken off Groden’s Christmas card mailing list last year.

“In the Groden movie, which used contemporary footage, Connally is sitting directly in front of Kennedy. Why can’t we see with our own eyes what Bugliosi says happened?”

———————————————————-

The way to find out that what Bugliosi said is right is to use Google Images. There were dozens of cameras along the parade route that day. I found many photos that show Connally seated much lower and to the left in what’s called a ‘jump seat.’ That allowed the Kennedys to be more prominently displayed, especially since JBC was at least 6’4″ tall